Equality

[henry quirk]

Why the hell would I do that?

As I am a natural rights libertarian, that's the lens my teachin' is focused through.

[Belinda]

commonsense wrote:

Mind you, I put forth a relativistic view of good and evil, but I wish it were not so. I would welcome absolute definitions for good and evil.

Genesis 2

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The absolute definition of good and evil and how it is related to the tree of life is a suggested reality. If it is, it cannot be surprising that Man, asleep in Plato's cave, would be unaware of it.

But the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the knowledge that there be good and evil in the world. The Tree did not confer knowledge of precisely what actions were good and what evil.

In The Garden there was no evil as The Garden was the place of the good God. Once that Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge he was cast out without knowing exactly what was good and what evil. it was not until later on that God took pity on Adam and sent Jesus Christ to spell out more or less exactly what was good and what was evil.

[Nick_A]

commonsense wrote:

Mind you, I put forth a relativistic view of good and evil, but I wish it were not so. I would welcome absolute definitions for good and evil.

Genesis 2

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The absolute definition of good and evil and how it is related to the tree of life is a suggested reality. If it is, it cannot be surprising that Man, asleep in Plato's cave, would be unaware of it.

But the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the knowledge that there be good and evil in the world. The Tree did not confer knowledge of precisely what actions were good and what evil.

In The Garden there was no evil as The Garden was the place of the good God. Once that Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge he was cast out without knowing exactly what was good and what evil. it was not until later on that God took pity on Adam and sent Jesus Christ to spell out more or less exactly what was good and what was evil.

But there was no world at the time and no subjective standards of good and evil. The Tree must refer to something objective. Lacking subjective standards, what is
objective good and evil?

[commonsense]

B, Nick

Are you talking about a suggested reality that was mentioned earlier?

I.e. an absolute definition of good and evil is a suggested reality.

And if it were an actual reality, then all men would be created equal.

But why wouldn’t other living things be created equal, too?

All men, all women, all trees, all flowers, all dogs, etc...

[Belinda]

Genesis 2



The absolute definition of good and evil and how it is related to the tree of life is a suggested reality. If it is, it cannot be surprising that Man, asleep in Plato's cave, would be unaware of it.

But the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the knowledge that there be good and evil in the world. The Tree did not confer knowledge of precisely what actions were good and what evil.

In The Garden there was no evil as The Garden was the place of the good God. Once that Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge he was cast out without knowing exactly what was good and what evil. it was not until later on that God took pity on Adam and sent Jesus Christ to spell out more or less exactly what was good and what was evil.

But there was no world at the time and no subjective standards of good and evil. The Tree must refer to something objective. Lacking subjective standards, what is
objective good and evil?

The story of The Garden of Eden and being expelled from Eden is not set in time but is timeless truth. The timeless truth that the story tells is that we men know there is good and evil and have to make up our own minds what standards to choose. We are cast adrift into the world with no standards whatsoever.

The New Testament tells how God took pity on us and so Jesus Christ came to show us what was good and what was evil.

[Immanuel Can]

The timeless truth that the story tells is that we men know there is good and evil and have to make up our own minds what standards to choose.

Not quite. If that were it, Adam and Eve would never have been out of the Garden in the first place. So long as they "made up their own minds" as to what they wanted, they'd be as good as it gets.

They were held to a much higher standard than "what they made up their minds" to "choose." In fact, their choice was the problem in the first place.

We are cast adrift into the world with no standards whatsoever.

That is certainly true. But if we make up our own standards, then there's no difference. Nobody is then "adrift" at all, so long as they make up something.

The New Testament tells how God took pity on us and so Jesus Christ came to show us what was good and what was evil.

Of what was good and evil, we had lots of information in the Old Testament. And we were never capable of doing the right thing, even when we were shown what it was. So something much more than that was required.

We didn't just need to be shown how to save ourselves. We needed to be saved -- especially from ourselves.

[Belinda]

The timeless truth that the story tells is that we men know there is good and evil and have to make up our own minds what standards to choose.

Not quite. If that were it, Adam and Eve would never have been out of the Garden in the first place. So long as they "made up their own minds" as to what they wanted, they'd be as good as it gets.

They were held to a much higher standard than "what they made up their minds" to "choose." In fact, their choice was the problem in the first place.

We are cast adrift into the world with no standards whatsoever.

That is certainly true. But if we make up our own standards, then there's no difference. Nobody is then "adrift" at all, so long as they make up something.

The New Testament tells how God took pity on us and so Jesus Christ came to show us what was good and what was evil.

Of what was good and evil, we had lots of information in the Old Testament. And we were never capable of doing the right thing, even when we were shown what it was. So something much more than that was required.



We didn't just need to be shown how to save ourselves. We needed to be saved -- especially from ourselves.

Your view of the 'disobedience' of Adam is not at the level of myth bit is rooted in time. There never was a time when Adam acted. We men are Adam, and we are constantly thrown into the situation of having to choose what to do for the best.Having to choose is a permanent predicament which is part of the human condition.

Jesus Christ as Saviour is a matter of faith. Jesus Christ as messenger of good is common sense and reason. Some Christians believe it's enough to believe in order to be saved .

[Nick_A]

commonsense

I wrote that objective good and evil is a suggested reality since we cannot prove it, we must experience it. It is like Plato’s forms. It is a suggested reality, a hypothesis to begin deductive reason and experience the connection between wholeness and it fragmentation

And if it were an actual reality, then all men would be created equal.

What if Man is a whole at a higher level of being? Each individual human beings are unique fragments of Man functioning at a lower level of being or our earth. By definition they are not equal as fragments but only equal as a necessary part of wholeness.

But why wouldn’t other living things be created equal, too?

All dogs are equal as representative of a platonic form. However there are many varieties of dogs within the form of dog. White light is a form. All colors are fragments of white light. Red, yellow, and blue re considered primary colors since they cannot be made by combining other colors. Why argue if blue is better than red. They are different but also necessary fragments for white light at the same level of being so are considered equal.

All men, all women, all trees, all flowers, all dogs, etc...

They are all different in the quality of their being but at the same time they are necessary parts of the living machine, the wholeness we call organic life on earth

Plato called the attraction to parts or fragments leads to OPINIONS. He called the search to experience forms or the source of opinions KNOWLEDGE. People will always argue subjective opinions but some have the potential to become one in objective knowledge

[Immanuel Can]

Your view of the 'disobedience' of Adam is not at the level of myth bit is rooted in time.

Heh. Being old doesn't make something wrong, anymore than it makes it right.

There never was a time when Adam acted. We men are Adam, and we are constantly thrown into the situation of having to choose what to do for the best.Having to choose is a permanent predicament which is part of the human condition.

You can say so. And it's certainly true that we have the "permanent predicament" of having to choose. The problem is that we humans don't choose the good all the time; much of it, we choose evil. Something's badly wrong with us -- and that's what we need to be saved from.

Old, it might be. But old things are sometimes only old because they stand the test of time.

Some Christians believe it's enough to believe in order to be saved .

Yes, I do. And so does the Bible: "...If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved."(Rm. 10:9)

That's the sum of it.

[Nick_A]

Belinda

Jesus Christ as Saviour is a matter of faith. Jesus Christ as messenger of good is common sense and reason. Some Christians believe it's enough to believe in order to be saved .

Why did jesus say in Mark10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

Why did Jesus say in Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

So if Jesus wasn't good and brought a sword rather than a peace sign, why is Jesus considered a messenger of good common sense? Where is the good?

[Belinda]

Belinda

Jesus Christ as Saviour is a matter of faith. Jesus Christ as messenger of good is common sense and reason. Some Christians believe it's enough to believe in order to be saved .

Why did jesus say in Mark10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

Why did Jesus say in Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

So if Jesus wasn't good and brought a sword rather than a peace sign, why is Jesus considered a messenger of good common sense? Where is the good?

The good, the reason, is mostly in the parables, and in the Sermon on the Mount.
"Sword" is a metaphor for sweat and tears and also includes the sweat and tears of war. His own life testifies to his not trying to avoid the Sword of sweat and tears, as he was faithful to good until he died.Jesus more than anyone else, knew all about the sword and did not try to avoid it throughout his life, and right through his final trial and death

When Jesus said "No one is good--except God alone." he surely referred to God as synonymous with Good i.e. absolutely good, whereas all Earthly creatures including Jesus himself are contingently good.

[commonsense]

Isn’t sword a metaphor for blood, death and war? The metaphor for sweat and tears is the plowshare.

[Belinda]

Isn’t sword a metaphor for blood, death and war? The metaphor for sweat and tears is the plowshare.

I doubt if Jesus was trying to stir up a violent insurrection. I take from literature what I understand.

[commonsense]

Isn’t sword a metaphor for blood, death and war? The metaphor for sweat and tears is the plowshare.

I doubt if Jesus was trying to stir up a violent insurrection. I take from literature what I understand.

Yes, I doubt that, too. I just thought the metaphor was odd. It seems that your understanding is odd then.

[commonsense]

When Jesus said "No one is good--except God alone." he surely referred to God as synonymous with Good i.e. absolutely good, whereas all Earthly creatures including Jesus himself are contingently good.

Another point I don’t understand—if Jesus was contingently good, how did he know what absolutely good was? There has to have been a way, because he knew that God was absolutely good.